>What would lead you to believe the f/4 would be better than >the 2.8 on said camera? > I am second to this. So far it is bold statement, to say one is better that the other without any real tests, performed by professionals on the field, and not by one sample only, to avoid the factor of sample variation. Gentlemen, let us wait and see. Dimitri
I third that. I have 2.8 and it gets heavier, not lighter or at constant, because I am getting older and also like to walk further. Also it filled the bag up with its length and diameter. If optically the same it would be very attractive. But for concerts and light science, nothing beats the 2.8.
I fourth that (can I say that?). I'd love a lighter lens. My shoulders are bad and anything lighter, with optical performance the same or better than my 80-200 1:2.8D, would be a wonderful acquisition. And I'd love to know how it performs with a Kenko 1.4X TC. Cheers, Dave
"Stupidity is a gift from God, but one mustn't misuse it" - Pope John Paul II